Bargaining Update-

Volunteers have been bargaining over lay-offs and policies that affect working conditions.  Here’s an update on those efforts.

The Budget Team continues to push for common sense solutions and compassionate options to prepare for the next round of cuts.

Bargaining Team volunteers met with manager representatives before, during, and after formal negotiations to first gain a clear understanding of the budget issues, come up with mitigating alternatives, and continue talks.  The team has continued to request specific information about all of the job-shifting, or informal movements of employees, around the agency that has also been a part of managing the budget crisis. 

One thing is clear, the complexity of Ecology’s budget funding sources, and the difficulty in getting accurate information from individual programs, makes this task daunting for the team.  After all the meetings and discussions the team has still not been provided definitive information on how many funded vacancies exist.  Either the programs have not been forthcoming with the information, or the managers we’re bargaining with don’t want to provide it.   Either way the situation makes it impossible to grasp Ecology’s ability to absorb further cuts or to understand why, with so many vacancies and hiring going on, that we have any formal reductions-in-force.

The consistent message from management’s side is that because Ecology has so many vacancies that rely on dedicated funds, cutting more of these unfilled positions as an alternative to RIFs will not help reduce the strain on the general fund.  The team has been asking why funds cannot be shifted to support positions on the chopping block, and again the consistent message is that this cannot be done.  Why is it, then, that OFM is able to “scrub” excess funds out of just about any dedicated fund when trying to make up for a general fund shortfall but Ecology can’t shift anything around?  OFM shifted money into the general fund as part of the Governor’s budget, resulting in the “giving up” of unused funds from a variety of dedicated sources. 

Given that Ecology has so few programs relying heavily on the general fund, and cuts are disproportionately felt by those same programs, it could be concluded that political forces are at foot that are taking a back-handed swipe at areas such as water rights permits, and water quality enforcement.  Water resources funding has long been a challenge for Ecology. The program continues to suffer from insecure funding and a legislature that seems to hate what it does.  If Puget Sound and climate change are so important, isn’t it time for the Governor to place the water supply of this state front and center by solving the funding problem?  As long as we have programs that must compete with social services and education for operating budgets, we will continue to see these important programs struggle to compete.

Other issues that the bargaining team continues to bring to the table include the unwaivering position by management on cutting itself.  No surprise here, however the team continues to point out the inequities in the numbers, the salary growth, and the cuts.  Statements made in “Inside Ecology” touted that cuts were taken in WMS as part of the belt tightening.  This was misleading, as the actual “cut” was the movement of a number of individuals from WMS positions into the highest level classified vacancies. None of these individuals were “shown the door.”  Even so, Ecology continues to be at the upper limit of the Governor’s guideline for the percentage of managers within state agencies.  According to data provided by DOP for last year Ecology had the highest percentage of managers compared to all the other state agencies.  The team continues to advocate for a comprehensive review of Ecology’s hierarchical organizational structure but it has not been received well.

For now the Budget Team is continuing to talk with representatives of management on an informal basis anticipating that the September budget forecast will likely be grim.  It is anticipated there will be another cut, and the team will be called on again to try to negotiate over the impacts.

Policy Negotiations Update – By Pete Kmet

This summer Ecology announced changes to several agency policies.  Ecology stewards noted several of these policies affected working conditions and requested WFSE to invoke negotiations over them.  WFSE invoked our right to negotiate and as a result Alisa Huckaby (Richland), myself, Norm Peck (CRO) and Debbie Brookman (WFSE) will be representing employees at a negotiating meeting.

Policies up for negotiations include:

1-50 Lay-off Procedures
1-70 Suspending Operations
11-10 Operating Agency Vehicles
11-17 Use of Ecology Facilities
5-54 Training Requirements and Frequency
1-16 Hiring and managing family members

Negotiations with Ecology Management are scheduled for September 18, 2009.

UMCC Report: Issues of the past year

– by Debbie Brookman

Elections were held for new employee members of the Union-Management Committee. The HQ Rep vote was a tie and will be re-voted. Reps are still needed for SWRO, CRO, and ERO. If you want to help your workplace, please consider volunteering. Vacant seats will be filled by the new UMCC once its members are confirmed.

The new UMCC will start out with a transition meeting where the departing UMCC can provide a briefing on issues it’s been tracking. The following article summarizes those issues. - the Editors 

Ecology Statewide UMCC
Outstanding Issues as of 3/23/09

Inclement Weather – (2/18/09):
The UMCC sent information to Carol Fleskes for consideration during the “hot wash” review of this winter’s situation. We are waiting for a response in the form of more discussion and/or a policy update proposal.

Environmental Specialist/Planner 4 designations – (2/18/09):
Polly Zehm agreed to review any situations we bring to her attention where we feel employees are working out of class. She indicated a preference for removing duties rather than an upward reallocation.

Environmental Specialist pay – (2/18/09):
Chris Parons previously indicated that an agency-sponsored package was being developed for submission to DOP for the next round of contract negotiations. This has been put on hold due to DOP’s current refusal to consider any such packages until the budget crisis is past. In the meantime, we may engage in on-going discussion about the ES pay issues in the hopes that collaboration can occur in the future.

High Cost-Of-Living Area pay – (12/1/08):
Chris Parsons related that Jay Manning is interested in addressing this through a package to DOP. At this time, this is on hold due to budget issues.

Time Accounting System – (12/1/08):
Amy committed to pass along any ideas we provide to her to OFM for improving the system. She also promised to let us know what kind of response our ideas receive.  (Suggestions about this topic through government form appears to have gained traction.)

Spills Program Budget – (12/1/08):
Dale Jensen promised to check-in with the stewards in Spills more regularly regarding concerns and anxiety around the budget. He also said he would “think about” our offer to collaboratively work with the program to address budget issues.

Workplace Behavior – (10/20/08):
We call it “bullying,” they call it “uncivil workplace behavior”
We have a tentative agreement to jointly provide training on the new CBA provisions – Article X Workplace Behavior. Before that can happen training will likely be developed for Ecology managers. We may need to develop the curriculum ourselves. Our goal is to provide this training jointly and on work time.

Jay Manning in the field – (7/18/08)
On Jay’s behalf, Polly stated that Jay is willing to spend more time in the field and accompanying employees while they do their work to get a better understanding of the non-enforcement side of field work.

More UMCC Ad Hoc’s to address regional issues – (7/18/08)
Polly and Amy confirmed willingness to form ad hoc UMCC’s to address region specific issues such as bike lockers at NWRO.

Budget 101 – (7/18/08)
Polly agreed to talk to Pat McLain about developing education for all employees on how the agency budget works. In the same meeting, it was acknowledged that the Water Quality budget needs to be explained to employees.

Exchange Time – (2/14/08)
Chris Parsons said he would provide specific citations in the law that justifies the Agency’s position on denying one-for-one exchange time.

Making Your Evaluation Work For You

 – by Pete Kmet

Evaluations are a critical part of every employee’s work life. Stewards find that many employees are confused by their role in the process. Sometimes employees find out for the first time during an evaluation that their supervisor is having problems with their performance.

This is such a critical issue needing employee education that we are rerunning this article from last year. If you have any questions about evaluations and how you should do them, don’t hesitate to contact a steward. -The Editors

It’s that time of year again, when your supervisor evaluates your performance over the past year (Oct, 1, 2007-Sept. 30, 2008) and sets your performance expectations for the next year.  Evaluations always seem to come at the busiest time of the year. They ought to be a time to celebrate accomplishments and set goals for the coming year. But for many staff, evaluations are viewed as a necessary evil, while for others evaluations can be a traumatic experience. 

Many stewards at Ecology are long-term employees, having gone through many evaluation cycles.  Some stewards have supervised staff and experienced evaluations from a supervisor’s perspective.  This article attempts to gather that experience to help you through the evaluation process.  We hope even experienced staff will find some pearls of wisdom you can use.

What is an Evaluation?

An evaluation has four parts:

1. Performance Feedback
2. Performance Expectations
3. Training and Development Needs/Opportunities
4. Organizational Support

It’s important to remember that an evaluation is just your supervisor’s opinion. You should try to negotiate an evaluation that you agree on and that tells the story of your work accurately. But if you can’t agree, remember that Part 4 is the place where you can state your own opinion and provide a rebuttal of anything the supervisor says that you don’t agree with.

Before the Evaluation

Read your previous year’s evaluation.  Reflect on the performance expectations identified for you and what you accomplished over the last year.  Note which expectations you met, which ones you didn’t meet and what things you accomplished beyond the expectations.

Anticipate what your supervisor might say about your performance and how you can professionally respond.  Make a list of what you accomplished over the last year. It’s helpful to look at your monthly reports. Look through your emails and electronic files and make a list of all the times you helped another employee, answered a letter, solved a problem for a citizen, or any of those other little things that that take our time but usually don’t get recognized.

Where you didn’t meet an expectation, reflect on why.  There could be a wide variety of reasons:  lack of training or proper equipment, budget constraints, actions or lack of action by clients, peers or supervisors; different work taking precedence; or, underestimating the effort it would take to accomplish the expectation (by you or your supervisor).

Think about what you want to accomplish next year.  Set realistic expectations.  Remember, next year’s performance will be measured by these new targets.

Think about training you need to do your job better or to help you progress in your profession development.  Identify specific training courses you would like to attend.  If you cannot identify a specific course, identify a category of training you would like to take.  Be realistic in recognition of our tight budget times.  Ask for support for a tuition reimbursement opportunity.

Reflect on your supervisor’s performance over the last year.  How were they helpful?  How did they make accomplishing your job more difficult?

If you expect a particularly contentious evaluation, consider asking people you’ve worked well with (either clients or peers) about your performance.  Where possible, ask them to use e-mail to document their responses.  This will be useful information you can refer to in part 4 of your evaluation.

Some supervisors provide a draft evaluation prior to the evaluation meeting. Consider asking for the draft and then revising it to your satisfaction. Many issues can be worked out this way. At the very least, you can go into the Evaluation Meeting with your different drafts and your focus on the issues needing discussion.

During the Evaluation Meeting

Some supervisors will have two meetings—the first to reflect on last year’s performance and a 2nd to set performance expectations for next year and to follow up on issues discussed during the first meeting.  Some supervisors will accomplish both in one meeting and through the use of e-mail.

During the meeting, listen carefully to what your supervisor is saying.  Use active listening techniques (asking clarifying questions).  Don’t accept a statement like “your co-workers think you are a slacker”.  Ask more specifically who said this and when and for what reason.  Ask for comparative data comparing your performance to peers to back up the assertion.  Remember, your evaluation is supposed to reflect your performance over the entire year, not just one recent incident. 

Make sure you fully understand the expectations being asked of you for next year.  If you think they are unrealistic, say so, providing concrete examples why.

Keep cool and professional!  Getting into a shouting match is not productive and will stress your relationship with your supervisor even more.

If you are taken by surprise by an unfavorable comment, express your surprise.  Ecology and DOP guidance clearly states supervisors are not supposed to surprise employees in their evaluation.  Surprise statements may be grounds for a grievance.

If you think the conversation will be contentious, consider asking a steward to join you in the evaluation meeting.  It’s amazing how simply having a 3rd party in the room to take notes will make a supervisor think twice about attacking you.

After the Evaluation

Agency rules require you to sign your evaluation, whether you agree with it or not.  You can note that you are not in agreement in the signature block.

If you think the evaluation does not accurately reflect on your performance, use part 4 of the evaluation to rebut specific statements you disagree with.  Make your response professional and factual.  Remember, your evaluation can be reviewed by other supervisors considering hiring you in the future.  If you are uncertain how to respond, consult with a steward.  Stewards can also help polish draft part 4 responses before you include them in your evaluation.

If you are surprised by a statement placed in the evaluation, or confidential health information is placed in your evaluation, or the evaluation process is not followed, you may have grounds for a grievance to challenge your evaluation.  Consult immediately with a steward.  Stewards have only 21 calendar days to file a grievance.  And before they file a grievance they will want to try to contact your supervisor to see if the issue can be resolved without filing a grievance.

In Conclusion

A key role of any supervisor is to help employees be successful.  A successful employee is not only productive, but helps a supervisor get more resources to make everyone’s life easier.  The evaluation process is one tool a good supervisor can use to help employees be successful.

Evaluations can be a great opportunity for you and your supervisor to build on a positive relationship for everyone’s benefit. Unfortunately, some supervisors on a power trip save up chits during the year and use the evaluation process to unload them on staff.  We hope you will find the information in this article helpful in responding if you find yourself in this situation.

Have the Proposed Budget Cuts Really Impacted Agency Managers (WMS)?

- By Charles San Juan, Hydrogeologist

By now, all of you have heard the “bad news” about the budget. As of this month (July), six Ecology staff received “verbal” reduction in force (RIF) notices. In other words, their jobs are being cut. Also, we just learned of another mandatory 2% cut, which translates to 11 Full Time Equivalent (FTE).

So what does this mean? For staff, things are obviously stressful for some (e.g. possible bumps) and downright terrifying for others (losing a job altogether). However, for agency managers (WMS), things remain murky.

As a result of the proposed cuts, union members (myself, Scott Mallery, ERO; Norm Peck, CRO; Tryg Hoff, WR and others) has organized a “budget team” (See the chair’s report in this issue). Our “mission” is to try and dampen the blows to members to the extent practicable.

In our on-going discussions, we have made it clear that we expect agency managers to “share the pain”. For example, one of our recommendations is for Ecology to reduce the 92 agency “middle-managers” (WMS-2, e.g. Section Heads, etc.). Here’s why: the current 92 WMS-2 positions will cost the agency ~ 27 million in salaries in benefits over the next biennium (09-11). To put this in perspective, the current salary and benefit costs for 101 agency Hydrogeologists is ~27 million (09-11 budget). In other words, over the next biennium, one layer of management (WMS-2) could fund an entire job class at Ecology (Hydrogeologists)!

Another interesting statistic: if you check annual salary and benefits costs (Table 1) what you’ll find is that the typical agency “middle” manager (WMS-2) costs ~ $150,000 per / yr. However, a “soldier-on-the-ground” (e.g. ES-3), costs about 50% less ($97,000 per / yr). Thus, in terms of annual salary and benefit costs, 1 agency middle-manager equates to ~ 1.5 lower-level staff (e.g. ES-3).
Note: 1 FTE = 27.6% “fringe benefits” and 36.8% “indirect” costs (agency standard, Apr-09). WMS = average 2008 salaries.

For another example, Table 2 provides data on the number of front-line supervisors and WMS-1 in each Ecology program. If you compare the number of front-line mangers (Unit Supervisors and WMS-1; 115 total) and WMS-2 (89 total), then 115 / 89 = 1.3. In other words, there’s 1.3 “front-line” managers for every “middle manager”.

The conclusion is that Ecology is “top heavy” with managers. Why do we need 1.3 frontline managers for every middle manager? Can’t unit supervisors and WMS-1 do the job?

In her July 7, 2009 Intranet article, Deputy Director Polly Zehm said: “I also want to let you know that there will be eight fewer management and supervisory positions as a result of our review.” When the budget team asked Polly about this, she said some of those positions were vacant and are being cut. It also appears that some WMS-1 are being “Y-rated” (salaries) and reallocated to classified staff.

However, so far, it doesn’t appear that anyone in management is losing their job

Union-Management Government Reform Ad hoc Committee Breaks New Ground

– By Guy Hoyle-Dodson, Government Reform Ad Hoc Committee Chair

Several months ago, Ecology’s Director, Jay Manning came to our membership and asked for help. The problem: the Governor was asking agency directors, particularly those from Natural Resource Agencies, to provide her with ideas for reforming state government, creating a more efficient and effective public sector, to deliver better services for less money. The union responded by forming an Ad Hoc Committee of bargaining unit activists, tasked to provide the director with new and innovative ideas that serve the mission of our agency, the general public good, and the needs of our members.

The first thought that occurred to committee members was that these ideas had to come from the general membership. They reasoned that only they had the collective knowledge and insight to recognize how Ecology and other Natural Resource Agencies could better serve the public. To this end they recommended to our management counterparts that we create a program of outreach to the rank and file. Many ideas were explored, but one suggestion from the Ad hoc Committee stood out, use computer networks and Wiki-like technology to allow members to debate and fashion a list of recommendations, a “Wisdom-Gestalt” from those closest to the problems.

Management consulted with their Information technology program, and yes, it could be done, using SharePoint software already under development within the agency. And thus, was launched a new experiment in union-management collaboration, one that finally elevated our membership into a respectful partnership with our management.

This experiment has succeeded beyond all expectations. Many hundred of suggestions were generated by our members and these were debated both on-line among members and within the Union-Management Government reform Committee. Several weeks ago we distilled the essence of these suggestions and sent our first recommendations to the Director. He will present at these meetings of Natural Agency Resource Directors and their staff over the next several months, with the ultimate goal of presenting a coherent plan for Government Reform to the Governor.

You can see some of these ideas on the SharePoint Website, prominently located on our Agency Intranet site. Follow up meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee and Management will tackle several other issues of Government Reform specific to Central Services and Ecology in future meetings.

The committee members thank you for all for your input. This is an exciting new direction for our agency, and we sincerely hope that such collaborations continue in the future

UMCC holds final meeting in June

- By Paul Pickett

The Union Management Communications Committee held its last meeting under the current Bargaining Agreement on June 17th. All employee representatives were present, as well as the chairs of the Budget and Government Reform UMCC subcommittees. Director Jay Manning attended the entire meeting, along with the usual management team. Budget issues dominated the meeting, but time was spent on other issues, including exchange time and bullying.

Polly Zehm began the meeting by providing a summary of the lay-off situation (provided later to employees in her Inside Ecology article). The UMCC discussed lay-offs and reiterated their concerns that employees be provided with as much information as possible and that lay-offs be distributed fairly between managers and represented employees. Jay expressed his support for this principle. Paul Pickett (HQ representative and UMCC employee chair) noted that the Budget Subcommittee had been created to discuss the details of budget and layoff issues prior to a formal Reduction In Force, and would be the team to negotiate RIFs once they occur.

Scott Mallery, chair of the Budget subcommittee, said he was looking forward to working with management. He presented an analysis of management positions that showed the distribution of EMS, WMS, and general classification managers in the agency (see article elsewhere in this bulletin). He expressed his concern that many managers supervised few or no employees, which seemed contrary to the goal of a “flatter” organization. Further discussion of this analysis will occur with the Budget Subcommittee.

Management expressed their interest in looking at management structure and noted that they were eliminating 8 or 9 WMS positions, mostly by reclassification to general classification positions.

Jay described recent discussions in the cabinet regarding government reform, and emphasized that budget problems are going to get worse, and the Governor is serious about changes that can increase efficiency and reduce cost. Government Reform Subcommittee Chair Guy Hoyle-Dodson discussed employee suggestions and the process being followed to analyze them. In response to Guy’s questioning, Jay noted that all “big and bold” ideas would be considered, as long as they were politically feasible and could be done in the next year or two. He agreed that the cost-effectiveness of ideas needed to be examined and documented.

The UMCC asked about a voluntary leave without pay program, and Jay said that the agency is still open to the idea. Chris Parsons, Ecology’s Human Resources Director, noted the difficulties with a voluntary LWOP program, especially in light of the many funding sources in Ecology and the challenges in linking savings to protection of positions. The Budget Subcommittee will continue to look at this issue.

Amy Heller, Ecology’s labor relations manager, noted that an employee suggestion to switch from printed earnings statements to electronic statements was being implemented immediately. Management would discuss the issue with the union regarding any impacts on working conditions.

Paul asked management if the new contract language about exchange time would result in any new agency practices or training. Amy said that no changes were expected. She mentioned an analysis that showed that exchange time is being used throughout the agency. Employees asked for a copy of the analysis, which she agreed to provide. Alisa Huckaby noted that the analysis only looks at exchange granted and not at requests that were turned down. UMCC employee members expressed their desire to track both exchange requests, denials, and approvals. Amy said that might not be possible due to the workload. Paul suggested that Exchange be added to the ALF system so employee requests and supervisor responses could be easily tracked. Scott noted that another aspect of this issue is schedule adjustment, which is also handled differently across the agency.

Paul asked if the new contract language about workplace behavior (in other words, “bullying”) would result in any training? Amy responded that existing procedures are adequate and no training is planned. Polly noted that the contract allows employee complaints about bullying to be provided to stewards who could carry the complaint to management anonymously. The UMCC employee members said they would like the union to provide training on this subject if management had no plans to.

The UMCC discussed whether “appropriate behavior” can be better defined. Amy noted that no definition came out of the contract negotiations, and Polly expressed her concern on going farther than the contract. Union members offered to bring examples to management, possibly through a meeting of stewards with management. Management agreed to continue the discussion of this issue through this approach.

In the final minutes, UMCC employee members expressed their concerns about employee illness in the workplace. This is a complex issue because employees with communicable disease such as flu who should be at home sometimes feel compelled to come to work. On the other hand, staff with minor symptoms such as a cough are sometimes sent home when they aren’t ill. Management pointed to an existing pandemic response plan, which they will send out, and offered to discuss this further.

Elections are being held this summer for new employee members of the UMCC, and meetings will resume in September.

Subcommittee on Bullying Formed to Explore Problems

– By Helen Pressley

A subcommittee of the stewards group is taking on the topic of bullying in the workplace in order to determine the depth and scope of the problem and to better support assertions that bullying is a problem within Ecology. Stewards who volunteered for this committee with me are Charles San Juan, Kim Pearson, and Tryg Hoff.

We are looking for additional examples of workplace bullying, or hostile work environments. Stories will be confidential. Please contact one of the committee members with your examples and concerns. Your help is appreciated.